plasticity_move_reference_meshes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is a world-space mm translation and is a single atomic history step, which matters for undo and downstream feature ordering. It does not state what happens on invalid ids or revision mismatch, keeping it just short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with verb and target, with no filler. Every clause carries information: transform type, units, target entity, and history behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, history-affecting mutation with no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description covers the core action and units but omits revision/token semantics, id validation behavior, and multi-id atomicity, which an agent would want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify deltaMm semantics (world-space, millimeters) and that ids target reference meshes, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the required 'revision' string (optimistic concurrency token?) or the optional 'intent' field, leaving two of four parameters unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Move), a specific resource (current approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes), and the transform semantics (world-space millimeter delta, one Plasticity history step). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_move (bodies), plasticity_rotate_reference_meshes, and plasticity_scale_reference_meshes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'current approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes' implies the tool applies only to this mesh type, and 'one Plasticity history step' hints at undo behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., existing reference mesh from import), and no stated alternative for other entity types.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.